And you guys got caught for fucking filming another team's practice. If the NFL is going to increase the severity of punishment for players based on past infractions, I don't know why they shouldn't with the teams.

No. They filmed the Jets' defensive coaches (and their signals) from their own sidelines. They were allowed to watch the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines, and they were allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from other places, but they were not allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines. And there again, I come out in the same place: They broke a rule, but the collective hysteria about it is grossly out of all proportion to what they did. While a rule is a rule, it's hard for me to get excited about the breaking of stupid rules. Both episodes remind of the public shaming that Jon Ronson wrote his most recent book about -- there's something irresistible about jumping on the "Patriots are cheaters" bandwagon, and there's something irresistible about inflating what they actually did. Hank knows they cheated for years every time they didn't fumble the ball, and you know they filmed other teams' practices. The narrative is just too strong.

__________________“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith

Unlike Burger's link, this one deals pretty fairly with the full debate over the fumble issue.

TM

I hadn't seen that; thanks for posting.

If I read that correctly, the bottom line is that if you do a sober scientific analysis, there are all sorts of reasons to think there has been nothing unusual about the degree to which the Patriots fumble the ball. Nonetheless, the author thinks it's good that someone started the debate by writing a less-than-fully scientific, sensational article that made dubious claims, because it got us all into a nice debate over statistical analysis. If you are a stats geek who lives for the day that everyone else cares about stats too, I can see that line of thinking.

I'm not going to search to check, but I think that article misstates an important fact about the now-infamous Colts game. IIRC, and I may not, only one of the balls the Pats used was significantly below the limit. FWIW.

__________________“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith

I hadn't heard it was before the game, but if they had, I agree with you there. Although, it seems possible that the refs were told to really check the balls carefully when submitted before the game and they checked out. And then they may have noticed they were underinflated sometime during the first half and checked them and switched them out at halftime.

TM

Wells Report:

Quote:

Prior to the game, Colts personnel had notified the NFL that they suspected that the Patriots might be deflating game balls below the minimum level permissible under the Playing Rules, although they did not support their suspicions with any specific factual information. In response to the pre-game concerns raised by the Colts, NFL Football Operations staff had notified the head of the NFL Officiating Department, Dean Blandino, and a senior officiating supervisor who would be attending the game, Alberto Riveron. During a pre-game conversation concerning various game-day topics, Riveron told referee Walt Anderson that a concern had
been raised about the air pressure of the game balls. Anderson told Riveron that he would be sure to follow his usual ball inspection procedure to ensure that the balls were properly inflated.

No. They filmed the Jets' defensive coaches (and their signals) from their own sidelines. They were allowed to watch the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines, and they were allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from other places, but they were not allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines.

Uh...I'm not sure what you're talking about.

NFL's no-video rule:

'The "Game Operations Manual" states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from a New England video assistant on the Patriots' sideline when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Taping any signals is prohibited.' -This whole thing is a quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And there again, I come out in the same place: They broke a rule, but the collective hysteria about it is grossly out of all proportion to what they did. While a rule is a rule, it's hard for me to get excited about the breaking of stupid rules. Both episodes remind of the public shaming that Jon Ronson wrote his most recent book about -- there's something irresistible about jumping on the "Patriots are cheaters" bandwagon, and there's something irresistible about inflating what they actually did. Hank knows they cheated for years every time they didn't fumble the ball, and you know they filmed other teams' practices. The narrative is just too strong.

I really think you're full of it. If you think that Belichick* and Brady are doing these things for a negligible competitive advantage, you are just delusional.

Wells Report: Prior to the game, Colts personnel had notified the NFL that they suspected that the Patriots might be deflating game balls below the minimum level permissible under the Playing Rules, although they did not support their suspicions with any specific factual information. In response to the pre-game concerns raised by the Colts, NFL Football Operations staff had notified the head of the NFL Officiating Department, Dean Blandino, and a senior officiating supervisor who would be attending the game, Alberto Riveron. During a pre-game conversation concerning various game-day topics, Riveron told referee Walt Anderson that a concern had been raised about the air pressure of the game balls. Anderson told Riveron that he would be sure to follow his usual ball inspection procedure to ensure that the balls were properly inflated.

And this contradicts what I said how? Because Anderson didn't say 'extra carefully?'

I suppose the implication is that the refs (and therefore the NFL, who didn't instruct them to be careful enough of the Patriots cheating ways) didn't take enough steps to ensure that the Patriots wouldn't cheat after confirming the balls were filled to regulation? Maybe they should have kept the balls in their possession the entire time, but is this really your argument? "The NFL didn't really care because the Patriots were able to sneak the balls into the bathroom in the few minutes they were in their possession in order to deflate them." It's like you don't really want to be taken seriously.

If I read that correctly, the bottom line is that if you do a sober scientific analysis, there are all sorts of reasons to think there has been nothing unusual about the degree to which the Patriots fumble the ball. Nonetheless, the author thinks it's good that someone started the debate by writing a less-than-fully scientific, sensational article that made dubious claims, because it got us all into a nice debate over statistical analysis. If you are a stats geek who lives for the day that everyone else cares about stats too, I can see that line of thinking.

I don't think you read it correctly. I posted it because I thought it was a fair look at the entire debate. You can only see the refutation of "a less-than-fully scientific, sensational article that made dubious claims," while ignoring stuff like this:

"Sharp’s version of this study found a huge effect of 88 percent. But after others fixed his data, some of the same players still showed an improvement when playing for New England, of 23 percent."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not going to search to check, but I think that article misstates an important fact about the now-infamous Colts game. IIRC, and I may not, only one of the balls the Pats used was significantly below the limit. FWIW.

Right. You know, it's funny. I say that it probably shouldn't be more than a 2 game suspension. I agree that Goodell is mostly posturing. But when it comes to you, it's clear that with any issue when it comes to the Patriots, you're not really trying.

"The report said all 11 of the Patriots' game balls, when re-tested at halftime, were below the minimum level specified by NFL rules of 12.5 psi. The four Colts game balls that were re-tested were between 12.5 and 13.5 psi, so they were within the rules."

Whatever. I thought the NFL was pretty ridiculous about this whole thing (too harsh a penalty due to posturing, ridiculous timing of the release of the Wells report, etc.). But you and Burger have been so ridiculous about trying to explain actual fucking cheating away that I'm embarrassed for you.

I'm not going to search to check, but I think that article misstates an important fact about the now-infamous Colts game. IIRC, and I may not, only one of the balls the Pats used was significantly below the limit. FWIW.

There were numerous incorrect reports about the actual ball pressures found.

From the Wells report, all of them were below the limit at halftime (as were at least a couple of the Colts' balls, which were more inflated to begin with). The question is whether that would reasonably be expected (or to that degree) because the balls were being used in cold weather. Based on one gauge the answer is "normal". Based on the other it's "below normal" (i.e., suspicious).

'The "Game Operations Manual" states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from a New England video assistant on the Patriots' sideline when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Taping any signals is prohibited.' -This whole thing is a quote.

Right, and Bill Belichick acknowledged doing it and said he had a different interpretation of "during the game" than Goodell, which was that it meant for use during a game.

Unlike Burger's link, this one deals pretty fairly with the full debate over the fumble issue.

TM

Sure. As it acknowledges, "If Sharp had behaved more like a scientist—and if Slate had acted more like a scientific journal—then his analysis would not have made it into print."

And then spins that into a benefit of stimulating debate and analysis.

My quarrel with Sharp's analysis isn't that. It's with the media that was pretty sloppy about reporting it in the first place and critically analyzing it in the second place. And with fans that haven't bothered to read past the initial breathless headlines about the fumble rate without either following up or bothering to understand the problems with the statistics, but repeat them as if they demonstrated as much as Sharp suggested. (hi Hank!).

Right, and Bill Belichick acknowledged doing it and said he had a different interpretation of "during the game" than Goodell, which was that it meant for use during a game.

1. I find it hilarious that you outright buy the word of the guy who got busted breaking a rule.

2. His argument is that his interpretation of "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game" is that he thought you couldn't use material recorded at a game during that game. And you buy this why? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Whatever. I'm sick of this conversation. Belichick is clean and just made an honest mistake about filming coaches signals. Brady probably didn't even know the guy who called himself "The Deflator" was deflating balls in exchange for sneakers and cursing him out. That guy was just fat. The NFL should have protected the Patriots from themselves by having all balls accompanied by armed guards at all times. The balls probably weren't even deflated. There's a question about which pressure gauge was the correct one!

I thought your backflips were amusing at first. Now they just seem pathetic.

If what you meant was "I'm not clear whether the Colts complained before the game or after it started", then so be it.

This is absolutely amazing. You have managed to seize on the one part of the conversation that is completely meaningless to the actual point. But thanks for letting me know they complained before the game. Fact established. Seems to me that means everyone in the league probably knew the Patriots were deflating footballs.

But what does this fact mean in the context of the conversation we were having? As I said, "it seems possible that the refs were told to really check the balls carefully when submitted before the game and they checked out. And then they may have noticed they were underinflated sometime during the first half and checked them and switched them out at halftime."

Either you're saying the NFL was remiss in not watching the Patriots really, really closely given the fact that the complaint came before the game and, like Ty, think this means the NFL didn't really care about the rule. Or your point is so deep that it is lost to all but you.